OTTAWA – A recent advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has indicated that the failure to address climate change may violate international law, which could lead to increased public scrutiny of major projects in Canada, according to experts. The opinion, released on July 23, 2025, asserts that all individuals have the right to a habitable planet. This non-binding opinion applies globally and may set the stage for future legal actions, including states challenging each other in the ICJ, lawsuits, and ensuring that investment agreements comply with international legal standards.
Sabaa Khan, the climate director at the David Suzuki Foundation, emphasized that the court explicitly stated that any expansion of the fossil fuel industry could be considered a breach of international legal obligations. She pointed out that Canada, historically a high emitter of greenhouse gases, is in a position to accelerate its efforts toward decarbonization. Khan urged that the Canadian government must eliminate public support for fossil fuels, asserting that there will likely be heightened public scrutiny surrounding national infrastructure projects.
The Liberal government has implemented controversial legislation that grants cabinet the authority to fast-track major projects deemed in the national interest, with plans to inaugurate its major projects office by Labour Day. Projects eligible for expedited approval may include ports, railways, mining operations, and pipelines. The government has encouraged First Nations leaders to support these developments through financial incentives and loan guarantees. However, many Indigenous leaders express concerns that their traditional ways of life may be permanently harmed if the government bypasses environmental standards, and they argue that aspects of this legislation could undermine their rights.
Khan anticipates that the court’s opinion will impact ongoing work on major projects in Canada. She stated, “There’s no way to look at this without seeing clearly that investment in fossil fuels is a breach of human rights law.” Additionally, she highlighted that Bill C-5 mandates that approved major projects align with Canada’s climate change objectives, suggesting that the government must consider the court's opinion in its decision-making processes. Failure to comply could lead to increased legal challenges against the implementation of this law. Khan advocates for Canadian investments in renewable energy and interprovincial electricity grids instead.
Although the ICJ opinion is non-binding, Khan noted its significant interpretive power. Supreme Court of Canada decisions frequently reference advisory opinions from the ICJ, demonstrating their influence on Canadian law. Ecojustice lawyer Fraser Thomson remarked that ICJ advisory opinions are considered authoritative interpretations of international law worldwide and have historically influenced court rulings in Canada. He suggested that the recent opinion will likely pave the way for more climate litigation within the country.
Thomson added that Canadian governments must recognize their responsibility to mitigate climate change risks. He warned that Canada could face legal repercussions if it pursues further pipeline constructions in light of this new advisory opinion. Following the ICJ's ruling, Keean Nembhard, a spokesperson for Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin, affirmed that the government acknowledges Canada’s important role in the global fight against climate change and maintains a commitment to that mission.
The court opinion also noted that countries and individuals adversely affected by climate change might be entitled to compensation, although quantifying such compensation poses a challenge. This influential case was spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and garnered the support of over 130 countries, reinforcing the collaborative commitment of UN member states toward addressing climate change challenges.
